![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
what is professional dance?
It seems like 'professionalism' in a lot of dancers' equates to "being paid fairly" - at least based on a lot of the reading I've done of dance stuff online. In my mind, there's a big difference between being a professional (being paid) and being professional (committed and invested in your art). And there also seems to be a notion that one is either a student or a paid, 'professional' dancer.
But that's not necessarily the case with pretty much any other art. Artists participate in plenty of community events without getting paid - independent theatre and dance does this without compromising professionalism or the performers' ability to get paid in other venues.
So, a question for the dancers on my f-list - does getting paid matter to you? Is it truly a problem for dancers or tribes to perform for a community without being paid?
I've been thinking that, except for the ability to do things like rent space and buy costume stuff, I don't really like the idea of getting paid. Yet people tend to equate what they pay for something with the value of it.
But that's not necessarily the case with pretty much any other art. Artists participate in plenty of community events without getting paid - independent theatre and dance does this without compromising professionalism or the performers' ability to get paid in other venues.
So, a question for the dancers on my f-list - does getting paid matter to you? Is it truly a problem for dancers or tribes to perform for a community without being paid?
I've been thinking that, except for the ability to do things like rent space and buy costume stuff, I don't really like the idea of getting paid. Yet people tend to equate what they pay for something with the value of it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Dance for a benefit for free? No problem. Dance at a student salon for free? No problem. Get asked to perform at a festival for free (or low cost) when other performers (such as bands) are paid well? BIG problem! There is not getting paid, and there is being taken advantage of.
On the other hand, I think that dancers have the responsibility to not put themselves out as professionals (in the hiring sense) unless they have a decent skill level and performance ability. The fumbling newbie should not be getting a restaurant gig.
There are plenty of places to dance within the community, if people want to dance and not worry about being paid. Salons, monthly events, haflas, benefit shows, etc. If people want to put the work, money, time, and effort into what makes them worth being paid, then they should be compensated fairly!
no subject
no subject
on a related note...
Re: on a related note...
I was talking to someone who is a DJ at a place that has had regular dancers. He said for him it was oversaturation because many of the dancers were not very good, they were students who were performing too soon. There has been some of that going on in Baltimore, and I feel like people may be trying to say "This isn't not doing us any favors" without pointing fingers.
no subject
In fact, it might even be a more professional art performance, because we're behaving like artists and not entertainers. There's a place for dance as entertainment, but there's also a valuable place for dance as independent art, where payment, fundraising, whatever is just a means of getting the opportunity for expression.
Ahem. Yeah, if you didn't already know this, huuuuge independent/guerilla theatre background over here.
no subject
And if people want to dance, as art pieces, as politcal action, for spiritual reasons (I'm thinking along the lines of what PURE is doing) for free, no problem. I think what does not work is people dancing for free at what could be paying jobs (restaurants, parties for hire, clubs, events) - some people do want to work paying gigs (to fund their classes, costumes, travel for dance, or because it's their job) and if someone taking all of those potential jobs for free just because they love dancing is (to me) screwing over other members of the same community.
It's like, I love fire dancing. I am happy to teach people I know fire dancing, take my practice poi to a park and field any questions, donate a performance to a benefit or festival, or take my stuff to a party someone's request. But if I'm going to work my butt off, get insurance, work out a costume and a choreo, and advertise myself, then yes I want to get paid for doing big events, parties for hire, most festivals, etc.
no subject
one can be professional without being paid.
Considering I am NOWHERE near any sort of ready to even think about being paid for my dancing I don't have alot to say on the matter.
The one thing that does stick in my head is that there is a difference between a solo performer and a troupe. A troupe needs to find a way to keep their dancers dressed and practiced. Sometimes a troupe can loose dancers if they can no longer foot their own costuming bill anymore. It happens in theater and music too. I quit a choral group because the dues and travel costs were just too much.
no subject
One of my reasons for not joining the WOS is their extensive costuming requirements (all of which you're required to purchase yourself) - it tends to lead to a troupe made up of upper middle class laissez-faire, or those who have no other life. :)
no subject
I think that may be part of my issue with dancers being so focused on getting paid - that it shifts the intent from art to entertainment in my mind.
Good point about the costume requirement thing, though - it forces (even if the group did fundraising) some limitations on who can join the group. I wonder if our tribe's looser requirement will end up still prohibitive for folks?
my mouth is bound to get me in trouble
and therein lies the rub - I definitely think there is a schism in our community.
Take Laurel Victoria Grey, who's getting invited to the Kennedy Center - That's art. but possible also paid :) However there's a whole 'nother contingent that are paid entertainers first and foremost. which doesn't mean they don't excel at their art. and then the entire realm of amateur/student/hobbiest enthusiasts - also could be art, could be paid, but not necessarily at the same level of the two above examples. I don't necessarily endorse one over the other, but I think they are definitely distinct entities.
To use your theater analogy - you have the Royal Shakespeare company, and the Metropolitan Opera. Then you have the hired and paid Kings Dominion/Ren Faire/Inner Harbor type roving bands, jugglers and entertainers. Then you have the volunteer/community theater in the park type local productions.
Again, not ranking or judging one as better or worse - there's overlap between the three, but they are also distinct directions. I think it depends on what your goal is when creating the show, AND the level of commitment and skill that you have available to put into the production.
first, let me make the analogy better...
Broadway = BDSS, Suhaila, etc.: paid, for-profit entertainment. Sometimes art, sometimes just totally not - it's what makes money, even though the performer is highly trained (we hope).
Regional theatre = the famousish folkloric performers: paid, highly trained performers theoretically producing art or high culture, largely fed by a very specific, quite small audience.
Local entertainment theatre (i.e. King's Dominion, Comedy Sportz) = restaurant performances: maybe trained, maybe not trained. Paid, and mostly about entertaining the not-necessarily there for the show audience.
Indie theatre, college theatre = the dance "art" scene, like the Mabs and Shakras of the world, sometimes student troupes: probably well-trained, mostly about expression. Paid in a break-even sense and for educational purposes, we hope.
Community theatre = the Omega Mus and Pi Delta Pis, most student groups: Primarily about entertaining the performers friends & potluck dinners, rarely paid, variably trained. I'm sure the Pi Delta Pis would be appalled to be thought of in this scene, but it's kinda true (sometimes they're local entertainment, too).
When I talk about what feels good/right/best, of course, I'm talking about for me. I want (to see or do) indie, college or regional theatre - art with a standard of professionalism, which isn't the least surprising considering how many years I spent doing those things theatrically. In reality, I can only invest the time to do indie theatre, because a) that's where the new exciting stuff is, anyhow and b) I have a life besides this artform. Which one do you want?
This conversation is getting quite fun, by the way!
Re: first, let me make the analogy better...
Not that I'd turn down the occaisional financial donation when offered. :)
P.S. I think the Pi-Delts were trying for Regional theater - they were very authenticity and folkloric accuracy based, and I think at their origination they actually acheived this - but all or most of the original members are gone, and the quality has slipped. My personal opinion, don't quote me on this.
no subject